LAXMIPRIYA TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition challenging legality and validity of the short tender call notices floated under Annexures-1 and 2 published in the daily Odia newspaper "The Dharitri" on 26.10.2011 for supply of clothing articles i.e. ankle boot black (PU SOLE)/Oxford Shoe (PU SOLE)/Rain Suit and Sports Shoes (TPR Sole) (in short, 'clothing articles') to Orissa Police during the financial year 2011-2012 on the ground that the said invitation of sealed tenders violates the INdustrial Policy Resolutions, 2007 and 2009 (for short, IPRs) as well as the provisions of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "MSMED Act"), the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to procure the required clothing articles indicated under Annexures-1 and 2 from SSI units like the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER's case in a nutshell is that it is a partnership firm and coming under the category of Small Scale Industrial Unit (for short, "SSI Unit"). It is registered with the District Industries Centre (DIC) and with the Export Promotion and Marketing Committee (for short, "EPM"). Some of the items covered under the tender call notices are manufactured by the petitioner firm and are covered under the EPM rate contract. Despite the same, in the impugned tender call notice, the Tender Committee invites tender from reputed manufacturers/suppliers for purchase of the aforesaid articles ignoring the SSI Units and MSM Enterprises.

(3.) THE terms of invitation of tenders cannot be open to judicial scrutiny for the reason that invitation to tender is in the realm of a contract. THE terms of the invitation to tenders are also not open to judicial scrutiny as the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. Further there has been a change of circumstances sufficient to justify the change of the articles / goods / products. THE Government Policy can be changed with the changing circumstances and only on the ground of change, such policy will not be vitiated. Larger interest of police service will have overriding effect than the individual interest of the petitioner. Concluding his argument, Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the writ petition.